关于因精神疾病(抑郁症)自杀的免责条款的适用标准:最高法院决定2017Da281367于2021年2月4日决定

G. Cho
{"title":"关于因精神疾病(抑郁症)自杀的免责条款的适用标准:最高法院决定2017Da281367于2021年2月4日决定","authors":"G. Cho","doi":"10.36248/kdps.2023.17.1.191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"If the insured commits suicide due to mental illness such as depression in insurance practice, there are many disputes over whether the accident was intentional or caused the result of death without being able to make free decisions due to mental and physical loss. The target judgment is also that elementary school teacher is under extreme stress from the student's parents' verbal abuse, afterwards, she was diagnosed with depression and treated at a psychiatrist, and about three years later, she hanged herself at home after work. The Supreme Court judged that the appellate court's decision did not take into account the opinions of psychiatrists and the results of administrative litigation of survivor’s compensation by misunderstanding the law on the interpretation of the reasons for immunity in the insurance contract’s policy, therefore, the Supreme Court sentenced a ruling that was completely contrary to the judgment of the appellate court. \nIn fact, mental and physical loss is the lack of discrimination and decision-making ability for objects due to mental and physical disabilities, whether there was mental and physical loss is not determined by the medical degree, but it belongs to a legal and normative judgment issue that judges should decide based on expert emotions. Therefore, considering the text and purpose of the provision for restricting suicide immunity, it is reasonable to interpret it narrowly as “a state in which free decision-making cannot be made” means a state in which there is no ‘awareness’ and ‘will’ of the consequences of death, such as mental and physical loss. In this regard, I think it is unfair that the target judgment judged that the insured's death committed suicide without being able to make free decision. Because the Supreme Court too broadly recognized the scope of death due to injury, focusing only on the protection of the bereaved families. \nI think it is necessary to revise the standard policy to define the concept of 'losing mind and body' and 'state in which free decision-making cannot be made' as a specific and objective criterion by referring to the above seven judgment elements.","PeriodicalId":129340,"journal":{"name":"Korean Insurance Law Association","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Criteria for the Application of the Exclusion Clauses about a Suicide due to Mental Illness(Depression): Supreme Court Decision 2017Da281367 Decided February 4, 2021\",\"authors\":\"G. Cho\",\"doi\":\"10.36248/kdps.2023.17.1.191\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"If the insured commits suicide due to mental illness such as depression in insurance practice, there are many disputes over whether the accident was intentional or caused the result of death without being able to make free decisions due to mental and physical loss. The target judgment is also that elementary school teacher is under extreme stress from the student's parents' verbal abuse, afterwards, she was diagnosed with depression and treated at a psychiatrist, and about three years later, she hanged herself at home after work. The Supreme Court judged that the appellate court's decision did not take into account the opinions of psychiatrists and the results of administrative litigation of survivor’s compensation by misunderstanding the law on the interpretation of the reasons for immunity in the insurance contract’s policy, therefore, the Supreme Court sentenced a ruling that was completely contrary to the judgment of the appellate court. \\nIn fact, mental and physical loss is the lack of discrimination and decision-making ability for objects due to mental and physical disabilities, whether there was mental and physical loss is not determined by the medical degree, but it belongs to a legal and normative judgment issue that judges should decide based on expert emotions. Therefore, considering the text and purpose of the provision for restricting suicide immunity, it is reasonable to interpret it narrowly as “a state in which free decision-making cannot be made” means a state in which there is no ‘awareness’ and ‘will’ of the consequences of death, such as mental and physical loss. In this regard, I think it is unfair that the target judgment judged that the insured's death committed suicide without being able to make free decision. Because the Supreme Court too broadly recognized the scope of death due to injury, focusing only on the protection of the bereaved families. \\nI think it is necessary to revise the standard policy to define the concept of 'losing mind and body' and 'state in which free decision-making cannot be made' as a specific and objective criterion by referring to the above seven judgment elements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129340,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Insurance Law Association\",\"volume\":\"20 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Korean Insurance Law Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36248/kdps.2023.17.1.191\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Insurance Law Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36248/kdps.2023.17.1.191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在保险实践中,如果被保险人因抑郁症等精神疾病自杀,由于精神和身体上的损失,在无法自主决定的情况下,对于事故是故意的还是造成死亡的结果,存在很多争议。目标判断也是,小学教师因学生父母的言语辱骂而承受着极大的压力,后来被诊断为抑郁症,接受了精神科医生的治疗,大约3年后,她下班后在家中上吊自杀。最高法院判定,上诉法院的裁决没有考虑到精神科医生的意见和遗属赔偿行政诉讼的结果,误解了关于解释保险合同政策中豁免理由的法律,因此,最高法院作出了与上诉法院判决完全相反的裁决。实际上,精神和身体损失是由于精神和身体残疾而对客体缺乏辨别和决策能力,是否存在精神和身体损失不是由医学程度决定的,而是属于一个法律和规范的判断问题,法官应该根据专家的情绪来判断。因此,考虑到限制自杀豁免条款的案文和目的,可以合理地将其狭义地解释为"不能作出自由决策的国家"是指对死亡后果,如精神和身体损失没有"意识"和"意愿"的国家。在这方面,我认为目标判决在被保险人无法自由决定的情况下判定其死亡为自杀是不公平的。因为大法院过于宽泛地承认了伤害死亡的范围,只注重对死者家属的保护。我认为有必要修改标准政策,参照上述七个判断要素,将“丧失身心”和“不能自由决策的状态”的概念定义为一个具体客观的标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Criteria for the Application of the Exclusion Clauses about a Suicide due to Mental Illness(Depression): Supreme Court Decision 2017Da281367 Decided February 4, 2021
If the insured commits suicide due to mental illness such as depression in insurance practice, there are many disputes over whether the accident was intentional or caused the result of death without being able to make free decisions due to mental and physical loss. The target judgment is also that elementary school teacher is under extreme stress from the student's parents' verbal abuse, afterwards, she was diagnosed with depression and treated at a psychiatrist, and about three years later, she hanged herself at home after work. The Supreme Court judged that the appellate court's decision did not take into account the opinions of psychiatrists and the results of administrative litigation of survivor’s compensation by misunderstanding the law on the interpretation of the reasons for immunity in the insurance contract’s policy, therefore, the Supreme Court sentenced a ruling that was completely contrary to the judgment of the appellate court. In fact, mental and physical loss is the lack of discrimination and decision-making ability for objects due to mental and physical disabilities, whether there was mental and physical loss is not determined by the medical degree, but it belongs to a legal and normative judgment issue that judges should decide based on expert emotions. Therefore, considering the text and purpose of the provision for restricting suicide immunity, it is reasonable to interpret it narrowly as “a state in which free decision-making cannot be made” means a state in which there is no ‘awareness’ and ‘will’ of the consequences of death, such as mental and physical loss. In this regard, I think it is unfair that the target judgment judged that the insured's death committed suicide without being able to make free decision. Because the Supreme Court too broadly recognized the scope of death due to injury, focusing only on the protection of the bereaved families. I think it is necessary to revise the standard policy to define the concept of 'losing mind and body' and 'state in which free decision-making cannot be made' as a specific and objective criterion by referring to the above seven judgment elements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信